Observational studyBMC primary care2025
Accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound examination of the lung in primary care performed by general practitioners: a cross-sectional study.
Observational study in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04905719 (Reliability of Point-of-Care Ultrasound Examination in Primary Care Performed by a General Practitioner), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Reliability of Point-of-Care Ultrasound Examination in Primary Care Performed by a General Practitioner
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Point-of-care ultrasound improves the diagnosis of heart failure in patients with dyspnea in primary care.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The diagnostic utility of thoracic ultrasonography in sheep and goats with contagious caprine pleuropneumonia.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung ultrasonography (LUS) is a point-of-care imaging modality with growing potential in primary care.
objectivesWhile its use is well established in hospital settings, data on its accuracy when performed by general practitioners (GPs) remain limited. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of LUS conducted by GPs following structured training.
methodsWe recruited 17 GPs from various regions of the Czech Republic. They completed a two-day educational course focused on LUS. Patients with current dyspnoea (NYHA II-IV) or a history of dyspnoea within the last four weeks were included and underwent LUS to assess the presence of pleural effusion and interstitial syndrome. An independent expert sonographer, blinded to clinical data, evaluated recorded LUS video loops as the reference standard. LUS findings were categorized into A profile (presence of A lines and intact lung sliding, indicating normal aeration), B profile (three or more B lines per intercostal space in at least two intercostal spaces per hemithorax, suggesting interstitial syndrome), pulmonary consolidation and pleural effusion.
resultsA total of 128 patients were enrolled in the study. A total of 768 thoracic segments were examined. A profile was identified in 642 (83.6%) segments, B profile in 108 (14.1%), pulmonary consolidation in 8 (1.0%), and pleural effusion in 12 (1.6%). For the identification of A profile, the sensitivity was 97.51% (95% CI 95.98-98.57), and the specificity was 88.10% (95% CI 81,13-93,18); for B profile, the sensitivity was 87.04% (95% CI 79,21-92,73), and the specificity was 97.73% (95% CI96,28-98,72); for pulmonary consolidation, the sensitivity was 100.0% (95% CI 63,06-100,00), and the specificity was 100.0% (95% CI 99,52-100,0); for pleural effusion, the sensitivity was 83.33% (95% CI 51,59-97,91), and the specificity was 99.87% (95% CI 99,27-100,00).
conclusionOur findings provide important preliminary data, demonstrating that GPs can perform LUS accurately after a structured training program. THE TRIAL REGISTRATION IDENTIFIER: is NCT04905719.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.